Development and Assumptions of New Critical Thought

New Criticism began in mid twentieth century. However, it is influenced by some nineteenth century thinkers, especially by Matthew Arnold, the British poet and literary and cultural critic. Arnold's central idea that New Criticism brought was "philosophy and religion would be replaced by poetry in modern society" (qtd. in Selden et al 25), where the existence of god is already questioned. He believed that literature is in deed culture, because for him, culture represents the best that has been known and thought in the world, and it can be a humanistic defense against destructive anarchy of the modern world.

It is New Criticism which replaced "bellettrism" - the study of rhetoric – with the study of literature in English teaching.

A.    Origins

Under Arnold's influence, the following thinkers pioneered development of New Critical thought:

I)                   TS Eliot

Eliot is believed to be mediator between Arnold and other thinkers of the twentieth century.  He gave profound and almost reverential regard to literary works themselves, so that "the text itself" or "the words on the page" can have independent existence, and he believed they deserve objective, scientific and disinterested criticism.  Another major idea of Eliot is the elevation of some literary texts over others by close and disinterested textual analysis, or formation of "canons". Canon is exclusive and hierarchical, that means it excludes many works like gothic and popular fictions, working class and women's writings.

In his 'Tradition and Individual Talent' (1919), Eliot develops two things in particular. The first is that he opined writers must have 'the historical sense' so that they can situate themselves in that tradition. Second, to become a great work of literature, it needs to have "depersonalization" or "impersonality". For this it must be approached scientifically or objectively. Regarding impersonality, Eliot tries to convey that literature ("poetry") should not be expression of personal emotions and feelings.  He so famously said, "Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality" (qtd. in Selden et al 26). For Eliot, poet is only the catalyst of experience, only a medium who needs to use technique of "objective correlative" for depersonalization of a text.    

II)                IA Richards

Richards, like Eliot, argued that criticism should emulate the precision of science. He also distinguished emotive / poetic (literary) language with 'referential' language of non-literary discourses. His book 'Practical Criticism' became so influential in English study that its ideas are central compulsory pedagogic tools in the higher education English syllabus. Later his methods are untheorized or naturalized and accepted as the natural and fundamental critical practice to interpret the text. Richards also helped in democratization of literature in the way that everyone (both writer and reader) is placed on the equal footing before the blind text and given equal consideration, regardless of their biographical, contextual and historical background.

III)             William Empson

A student of Richards, Empson's 'Seven Types of Ambiguity' (1930) recognized ambiguities as essential characteristics of poetic language.  According to him, ambiguities build into richness of the text. Though he is not considered a purely New Critic, his idea that focuses on ambiguities is influential in New Critical practice.

B.     Development of New Criticism in America

At about the same time of Eliot, Richards and Empson, in America too, the same kind of approach to literature was in development.  It was led by a group called 'Southern Agrarians'. Later, scholars from England came to the US since the American society was more open and liberal, and they were now known as "fugitives". Southern Agrarians and Fugitives developed and strengthened New Criticism together.

Selden, Widdowson and Brooker list out that major reasons for origins and development of New Criticism in America are as follows (28-29):

·         Southern Agrarians and Fugitives were hostile to the hard-nosed industrialism and materialism of the United States dominated by 'the North'.  

·         The impersonal analysis of what makes them great works of art might represent a heaven for alienated intellectuals (because they don't want to look at history of war etc. while interpreting literature).

·         With the huge expansion of the student population in the States…New Criticism with its 'practical criticism' basis was at once pedagogically economical…and also a way of coping with masses of people who had no history in common. In a way, it was democratic for a multicultural America.

Premises and Practices of New Criticism

Major assumptions of New Critical thought are discussed in various parts of this paper as they come in their chronological or contextual order. In addition to those beliefs, some key idea that New Criticism has faith on are as follows (Selden et al. 29):

·         The text itself is enough. It has life.

·         It is not concerned with context- historical, biographical, and intellectual and so on. (The external elements can hamper scientific quality and objectivity of the text, which are necessary to become a great literature.)

·         The interpretation is science, thus it needs to be impersonal and objective.

·         It is not interested in fallacies of intention and/or effect.

·         It is concerned with the language and organization of the text.

·         It doesn't seek a text's 'meaning', but how it 'speaks itself' – "A poem must not mean, but be", by Archibald MacLeish

·         It is concerned to trace how the parts of the text relate, how it achieves its order and harmony (organic unity).

·         It concerns with how it resolves irony, paradox, tension, ambivalence and ambiguity.

·         It is concerned with how the text relates itself to the theme of timeless and universal human significance – resulting itself into a great literature.

Criticism as Profession

It is New Critical movement which established criticism as a profession of critics. John Crowe Ransom in 'Criticism, Inc.' (1937) said that "criticism is the business of professionals – professors of literature in the universities in particular" (qtd. in Selden et al 29), thus it needs to be more scientific, precise and systematic. He opined that "critic should also be able to exhibit not the 'prose core' to which a poem may be reduced but 'the differentia, residue, or tissue, which keeps the object poetical or entire" (qtd. in Selden et al 29).

Percepts of New Criticism are applied in one of John Keats' odes by Cleanth Brooks and this helped New Critical thought to spread throughout generations of American university literature students.

Intentional and Affective Fallacies

Though New Criticism is largely praxis, thus practical; some concepts of it are highly theoretical.  WK Wimsatt, in collaboration with Monroe C Beardsley, published 'The Intentional Fallacy' (1946) and 'The Affective Fallacy' (1949), both of which are influenced by Eliot and Richards and engage with the addresser-message-addressee nexus.  The first one considers attempts to find out personal input of the writer as a fallacy, saying "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work" (qtd. in Selden et al 30-31). The second, in the same way considers attempts to interpret the text based on how it affected the readers as fallacy, because it ends in impressionism and relativism.  Affective fallacy in a way represents the confusion between the poem and its results. Both of these essays try to establish the poem itself as an object of specifically critical judgment, so that "…though cultures have changed, poems remain and explain" (Selden et al 31).

New Criticism into Non-Poetry Genres

Primarily New Criticism is focused on poetry. However some later critics have developed applications of this thought into other genres as well. Mark Schoner in 'Technique as Discovery' applied it to prose fiction and tried to differentiate the content (as not-art) and achieved content, or the form (as art). 

Chicago School of Neo-Aristotelians: a New Critical Heresy

A group of critics led by RS Crane at the University of Chicago borrowed idea from Aristotle's 'Poetics' and 'Rhetoric' and pointed out limitations on New Criticism (rejection of historical analysis, tendency to present subjective judgments as though they were objective, primary concern with poetry etc). They tried to develop a more inclusive and catholic criticism. As influenced by Aristotle, they sought more logic and evidences in the text.

Though Neo-Aristotelians too rejected intention of author, they believed that the writer consciously or unconsciously tries "to impose his fictional world upon the reader… it contains an authorial voice – the implied author" (qtd. in Selden et al 33). They argued that we also need to identify and analyze that voice or implication. Wayne C Booth, a Chicago Scholar also differentiated between 'reliable' (third person) and 'unreliable' (character within the story) narrator, and said the reliable narrator is often close to the values of the implied author whereas the other is deviant from them.

C.    Moral Formalism (Leavisite Criticism)

FR Leavis, editor of the 'Scrutiny' is so influential in study of literature that Terry Eagleton writes, "Whatever the failure or success of 'Scrutiny'… that fact remains that English students in England today are Leavisites whether they know it or not…" (qtd. in Selden et al 33-34). It might be because in addition to editing 'Scrutiny', he also taught generations of students who later became teachers and writers. He too has a great contribution to replace "bellettrism" with literary studies.  Though many consider him as a theorist, he never liked to theorize his ideas and remained practical, empirical and strategically anti-theoretical. 

Leavis focused on idea of "felt life" – text's closeness to experience of life, to prove its moral force and to demonstrate its influence. By the phrase 'the common pursuit of true judgment', he referred to canonization of selective texts like previous New Critics. He also stressed on identification of 'great works' and sifting out of other dross.

Leavis's key idea is known as 'Moral Formalism'. It states, "Such (great) works will promote the values of 'Life' against the forces of materialism, barbarism and industrialism in a 'technologico-Benthamite' society" (qtd. in Selden et al 35). In simple words, Leavis, like Arnold, believed that great literature can heal the pains of anarchy of modern society which is governed by technologies (Leavisite term 'technologico-Benthamite' is synonymous to Arnold's 'Anarchy'). Great literature in addition can promote moral values in human beings to guide the society properly. This is the reason why the New Critics from Arnold to Leavis are called "humanists". 

Leavis's idea added sociological and historical sense to New Critical thought. He presented literature as a weapon in the battle of cultural politics. He, like other New Critics / Liberal Humanists, respected past and literature of past. New Critics in overall, believed that "great works of literature are vessels in which humane values survive" (qtd. in Selden et al 35).  In this regard, Leavis's idea in particular and New Critical idea in general is both elitist and culturally pessimist. Nevertheless it was profoundly popular and influential in the twentieth century academia, and it is even today.

  

Works Cited

Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. 5^th ed. New Delhi: Pearson, 2005.